Viv Richards vs. Dennis Lillee

[Guest HariSampath]

Hey Sampath, Are you talking about Australia only? So let us start from '98 Sharjah, '98 Dhaka ICC KO, '00 Nairobi, ICC KO,--who had played the crucial knocks there? And do you realise that the going gets tough only when Sachin gets out? How many times in his life has Sachin come to crease (in tests) when the score is 20/2? Problem is, people expect Sachin to start as well as finish the game all on his own, forgetting that there are 10 more players in the team!

In this modern era of Australian domination, it is natural to expect that a batsman who is tagged as the "world's greatest" should be expected to win games of his own bat. Particularly against Aus IN Australia as the pitches there are fast bouncy etc. Something like chasing 300 to win , Sachin should get 150-160 notout and win the game, and also to be considered the "world's greatest" he should have done it many times. In over 400 games, Sachin has not won a SINGLE match for India off his own bat, chasing 300 against Aus, Eng, SA, WI etc in their home grounds Sachin has not even done it once. In a ODI context, yes, batsmen can win games off their own bats single handedly... Richards had done it by scoring 189 notout in the company of Mike Holding, I mean that kind of innings

[Guest HariSampath]

is it a Yes or No to Post 131 .... dont care what you wrote or what you think ... could you reply in Yes OR No ONLY ... Last chance ... PLEASE.

Dont shout or get hysterical, when you haven't answered my question with a simple Yes or No, for several weeks, why should I do so now / You first answer my question : Your first point on that debate has been successfully defeated by me : Yes or No.

[Chandan]

In this modern era of Australian domination, it is natural to expect that a batsman who is tagged as the "world's greatest" should be expected to win games of his own bat. Particularly against Aus IN Australia as the pitches there are fast bouncy etc. Something like chasing 300 to win , Sachin should get 150-160 notout and win the game, and also to be considered the "world's greatest" he should have done it many times. In over 400 games, Sachin has not won a SINGLE match for India off his own bat, chasing 300 against Aus, Eng, SA, WI etc in their home grounds Sachin has not even done it once. In a ODI context, yes, batsmen can win games off their own bats single handedly... Richards had done it by scoring 189 notout in the company of Mike Holding, I mean that kind of innings

That is the silliest logic, Hari. Sachin is supposed to score 150-160 chasing 300 in Australia, England etc--and not once but many times??? How many batsmen have done that against any team, ie, score 150-160 chasing 300? Please, a stats or list here will be helpful along with year and team against they've done so. Please do it.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

But your First point was that Bradman would have failed in India..... and the 2 points you gave in support of that were BOTH defeated ( first time batsmen and first touring teams ).... so how can you say you were not defeated.... and why haven't you given a SINGLE point in support of your claim ?

[Guest HariSampath]

That is the silliest logic, Hari. Sachin is supposed to score 150-160 chasing 300 in Australia, England etc--and not once but many times??? How many batsmen have done that against any team, ie, score 150-160 chasing 300? Please, a stats or list here will be helpful along with year and team against they've done so. Please do it.

Silliest logic ?? how ? For someone to be considered the "world's greatest batsman".... not even getting a big matchwinning 100 against Aus in Aus, against SA in SA and against Eng in Eng......not even ONCE in 400 + games is pretty sad

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

Ok ... if you want this to continue .. you need to first answer my question in post # 131 in a simple yes or no before we go any further ... your choice Let me know

Simple answer to your question is "there cannot be binary yes or no answers to some questions like significant, important, etc". If you mean whether I think those 8 points were ALL encompassing and whether they were completely definitive of Bradman's status as a Batsman.... answer is NO

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

Thanks.. phew that was hard to extract ... but never mind. So why do you judge mordern batsmen by those standards ? Unless ofcourse you think the 8 points that you made were more important than the 8+6 I did .. and that we should go only by those 8 you did ? And are you implying that playing and performing well in Eng,Aus is more important than playing in India,Pak,SL,SAF ? (This is where we get to the first point in my list )

My 8 points are more all encompassing of judging a batsman as great or not, when compared to yours

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

And are you implying that playing and performing well in Eng,Aus is more important than playing in India,Pak,SL,SAF ? (This is where we get to the first point in my list )

My point is that playing and performing against any team anywhere is important. My standards for greatness are "playing and performing to such an extent that the batsman makes a huge difference to his team winning the test match, and does this most of the times" Your points about SA, India etc may have been a debatable issue had Bradman played and consistently failed in these conditions, but the fact remains Bradman never played in India and that can never be held against him, and we can only guess how he would have performed. Here we have to see how he performed against the Indian team, in Australia, and also take as a guidance how other great batsmen in those seasons/era fared in India. By any comparision, I have statistically shown that Bradman, had he toured India in the 30s and 40s, would have been a phenomenal success, getting very big hundreds, some double 100s and perhaps even a 300, had he played against India for those 10 years , both in Aus and in India. It is this point which everyone can see and cannot refute, you stubbornly turn a Nelson's eye to

[Guest HariSampath]

Nope. Mine are. Unless you are telling me that succeeding in India' date='Pak,SL,SAF,WI is a insignificant acheivement (which I think you imply)[/quote'] See my 8 and your 8.... and ask anyone to judge which is a better criteria for judging batting greatness. My points include fast bowling, all spinners, swing, seam, hostile conditions, match situations, levels of high scoring, consistency etc... Your 8 points don't even address one of these points in judging batting greatness ( you don't mention winning a game at all in your 8, so u think this is unimportant ?? ) BB's 8 points for batting greatness : 1. Playing IN India 2. Playing in Pak,SL,WI ? 3. Playing against a quartet ala Holding,MM,Big Bird,Andy Fiery Roberts ? 4. Playing against qualities Leggies ? 5. Playing against super fast bowlers (Shoaib,Donald,Blee etc) 6. Playing at a Wankhedesque dust bowls where the first innings Batting Avg is lesser than a Perths 4th inngs avg ? 7. Playing reverse swing ? 8. Playing against really mean bowlers with sub 23 avg ? Hari Sampath 8 points for batting greatness 1. Playing in the swinging and seaming conditions of England 2. Playing on the fast bouncy tracks of Australia. 3. Playing on uncovered pitches 4. Scoring runs at an extraordinarly level of consistency , getting huge scores almost in every test match played. 5. Ability to turn a test match around in one session of batting 6. Ability to turn entire series around and win from a practically lost position, purely by batting. 7. Ability against all types of spinners, off spinners, left arm orthodox etc. 8. Ability to score runs at the rate of 100 per session, helping the team to set up test victories Let anyone judge which is a more complete and higher standard of batting greatness, your 8 or my 8.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

But you cannot simply proclaim that since he did better IN ENG & AUS he would automatically do better IN INDIA (Ask Ponting) .... that is just illogical as the pitches and conditions are simply completely different ... to those that exist in Eng and Aus. That is common knowledge. And if you want to know which country is more conducive to run scoring then check the stats presented in this thread. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=49255 thats a big thread but most stats are on the first 3 pages ... of that thread We will continue this tomorrow.

So how can you claim Bradman would NOT have succeeded in India ?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

But you cannot simply proclaim that since he did better IN ENG & AUS he would automatically do better IN INDIA (Ask Ponting) .... that is just illogical as the pitches and conditions are simply completely different ... to those that exist in Eng and Aus. That is common knowledge. And if you want to know which country is more conducive to run scoring then check the stats presented in this thread. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=49255 thats a big thread but most stats are on the first 3 pages ... of that thread We will continue this tomorrow.

Your points on that issue had also been refuted successfully by me. In the 30s, and 40s and later, teams touring India for the FIRST time were routinely piling on 500+ 600+ scores, as I showed you. Further your argument that batsmen playing here first time won't score heavily was also defeated as shown by Weekes getting 4 successive big hundreds in India... so why not Bradman who was twice as good as others in that time, and who had also scored heavily against India back in Aus just previous season: this was my question which you have still failed to answer

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest HariSampath]

dont forget to mention the six additional points I made earlier in this thread .... And yes I agree that point about winning matches is valid .... I thought that was a obvious hence didnt bother mentioning it. But there is a vast difference in doing it against a really good opposition in tough conditions as opposed to a weaker opposition in not so challenging conditions .... Also I have stats to show you how the pitches in the 30s were belters ... and ofcourse there is absolutely no doubt about the fact that bowlers after 70s and 80s were faaaar better than those in 30s. all that tomorrow. :thumbs_up:

So how many test matches has Sachin Tendulkar won against Australia in Aus , or against SA in SA or against WI in WI or against Eng in Eng, where his batting alone completely wiped out the opposition from the game.... tell me.... in 18 years how many times ?

[Guest HariSampath]

Can never say for sure. No one can for obvious reasons. But if stats are anything to go by India is hardly a batting paradise .... (As those stats bear out)

We are talking about Bradman in the 1930s and 1940s and how he would have fared in India ....don't deviate. Do you accept that your two points in support were now defeated : 1. Teams playing in India for first time will find it tough to get runs 2. Batsmen playing in these conditions will not get runs Both defeated... Yes or No please....because I have defeated your points with available stats and figures from those years:two_thumbs_up: